Torrid gets published

[redtodd 7]

thanks. It is pretty cool, yeah. I've been paid to write lots of stuff--electronic only--and I did appear in print for my college paper, but this is obviously a big step up in readership. Now I just need to watch out for Gordon Smith's people coming to my house and putting my nuts in a vise.

 

I still get a chubby anytime I see my name in print for a show. It is even cooler to see it on a Marquee, even if it is for some dumpy-arse bar.

 

Now that I know what your real name is, I plan on signing you up for all kinds of gay pron, edjr will help me out with those links.

[torridjoe 0]

I still get a chubby anytime I see my name in print for a show. It is even cooler to see it on a Marquee, even if it is for some dumpy-arse bar.

 

Now that I know what your real name is, I plan on signing you up for all kinds of gay pron, edjr will help me out with those links.

 

WELCOME PUPPET SHOW!

and redtodd

 

 

[redtodd 7]

WELCOME PUPPET SHOW!

and redtodd

 

The font for the Puppet Show is much larger, mine is much smaller and they are usually missing the 1st "D" so it only says "RETODD"

[torridjoe 0]

The font for the Puppet Show is much larger, mine is much smaller and they are usually missing the 1st "D" so it only says "RETODD"

 

"Well, at least we have a big dressing room."

"Really--bigger than the puppets?"

 

[donhaas 18]

WELCOME PUPPET SHOW!

and redtodd

 

WELCOME NORTHERN NORTHWESTERN WISCONSIN ELKS CLUB BIG JOHNSON T-SHIRT CONVENTION

 

 

 

 

and redtodd

[doughboys_2002 11]

commentary in The Oregonian.

 

They cropped the fro!

congrats!

[Bill E. 666]

Congratulations!!! You made the big time.

 

It is kind of funny though to see you of all people chide someone for "casting his lot with vote after lockstep vote"

 

Anyhow, very nice article.

[Ravens 03 0]

Ravens 03 wants to know when you started speaking of torrid in the 3rd person?

 

 

 

 

[and congrats]

[MDC 5,900]

Congrats: Nicely done.

 

I'm finishing up a movie column - reviews of District B13 and Wassup Rockers. Email me at superkarate_monkey_deathcar@yahoo.com if you'd like to see it when it's live (week or so).

[torridjoe 0]

Ravens 03 wants to know when you started speaking of torrid in the 3rd person?

 

[and congrats]

 

Torrid likes his chicken spicy.

[and thanks]

[Q.Lazzarus 0]

Most excellent work Torrid. Congrats.

[swandown 0]

"Bunster" sounds like a character from some fraternity-themed movie.

 

"Mr. Bunster? Zero-point-zero!"

[torridjoe 0]

"Bunster" sounds like a character from some fraternity-themed movie.

 

"Mr. Bunster? Zero-point-zero!"

 

It's a German name, by way of Chile. The Bunsters of Chile are all old-money.

And no, I was never teased once for it.

[vuduchile 1,941]

Way to go Bunster!

 

I suppose I'll have to actually read the article at some point.

[Fervid Ro 0]

[drobeski 3,061]

Bunster

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[surferskin 30]

Name that troll

 

Does anyone know who "Torrid Joe," the City Hall troll, is? He publishes the Loaded Orygun blog, and he likes to come on here on weekdays from his city job and act obnoxious. I met him at Candidates Gone Wild, but he didn't give his real name. He's a largish guy, maybe around 30 years old, and not exactly GQ.

[GettnHuge 1]

ok so who is gonna send the email explaining that their new writer likes kids.

a little too much

[shovelheadt 62]

May I lend a small critique. Just reading it for what it is, disagree or not.

 

You offered up two great/sensitive issues to back up your assertion that this dude was breaking promises. Gay marriage and Iraq...two big time issues lately. But then you followed it up with flag burning??? Honestly, does anyone but the hard core left really care about having that right?

 

It's no big deal, just thought the article would have held more importance without the flag part. Congrats on the pub.

[athena 0]

Great job in getting published. Congratulations.

 

Maybe this is just the beginning. Keep going. You could make a difference.

 

[AirRam 3]

But perhaps the most egregious example of political window dressing was his yea vote on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

 

Wow. What an evil, evil man. Gordon Smith > (Hitler + Stalin)Pol Pot

[torridjoe 0]

May I lend a small critique. Just reading it for what it is, disagree or not.

 

You offered up two great/sensitive issues to back up your assertion that this dude was breaking promises. Gay marriage and Iraq...two big time issues lately. But then you followed it up with flag burning??? Honestly, does anyone but the hard core left really care about having that right?

 

It's no big deal, just thought the article would have held more importance without the flag part. Congrats on the pub.

 

I totally disagree that it has any core partisan appeal. Some far right conservatives think it's a waste of time as well.

 

It has nothing to do with protecting the right to burn the flag, but protecting the right to expression that disgusts or angers people. That was the speech most designed to be protected.

 

In any case, that's what's so stupid about the bill. To have the Supreme Court reach a rare, direct opinion on something, and then spend all this time creating a Constitutional amendment that 'overturns' it, just to make a statement against about a dozen people year, idiots all of them? That's superimposing on the separation of power for partisan gain, is what that is. Why is this debate even going on still, is the question? And hey--let's concede the debate! Even if it SHOULD be banned to burn the flag, is that up there on anyone's pressing concerns list? At all? Nope.

 

Thanks for the honest input.

[nobody 2,049]

It's good to see someone at least keeping half of the politicians honest. Keep up the good work.

[GettnHuge 1]

In any case, that's what's so stupid about the bill. To have the Supreme Court reach a rare, direct opinion on something, and then spend all this time creating a Constitutional amendment that 'overturns' it, just to make a statement against about a dozen people year, idiots all of them? That's superimposing on the separation of power for partisan gain, is what that is.

 

maybe your next article should research what the branches of gov't do.

 

congress does something torrid doesn't like

torrid says: the courts will overturn it!

 

the court does something torrid doesn't like

torrid says: congres should intervene!

 

altho more often than not it seems Meathead sides with the court over even the vote of the people.

[Ravens 03 0]

When's your next article on Rove's Indictment???

 

 

 

[Franknbeans 46]

Bunster, duuuuuuuuuude

[torridjoe 0]

maybe your next article should research what the branches of gov't do.

 

congress does something torrid doesn't like

torrid says: the courts will overturn it!

 

the court does something torrid doesn't like

torrid says: congres should intervene!

 

altho more often than not it seems Meathead sides with the court over even the vote of the people.

 

there's a big difference between adjusting law where the current forms are found wanting but constitutional (as in Kelo), and changing the Constitution after SCOTUS has clearly declared something to be within its bounds.

 

What kind of absurd focking nonsense is it for Congress to take "the flag" out of the Court's jurisdiction? On what possible basis?

[GettnHuge 1]

What kind of absurd focking nonsense is it for Congress to take "the flag" out of the Court's jurisdiction? On what possible basis?

 

you're not serious, right?

[torridjoe 0]

you're not serious, right?

 

Of course I am. There's no logical basis for taking away the Court's ability to rule on matters involving the flag.

[Recidivist 1]

Of course I am. There's no logical basis for taking away the Court's ability to rule on matters involving the flag.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

there's a big difference between adjusting law where the current forms are found wanting but constitutional (as in Kelo), and changing the Constitution after SCOTUS has clearly declared something to be within its bounds.

 

What kind of absurd focking nonsense is it for Congress to take "the flag" out of the Court's jurisdiction? On what possible basis?

 

Torrid, correct me if I am wrong, but is it not Congress' job to enact legislation (including Constitutional Amendments) and that the courts are merely there to interpret those laws. If I understand what you are saying here, you are implying that the Courts should hold some sort of neverending hold over the laws of this country. That seems to be completely against what the Constitution intended.

 

BTW - I think that an Amendment like this is ludicrous.

[GettnHuge 1]

Of course I am. There's no logical basis for taking away the Court's ability to rule on matters involving the flag.

 

 

logic /= you

[torridjoe 0]

Torrid, correct me if I am wrong, but is it not Congress' job to enact legislation (including Constitutional Amendments) and that the courts are merely there to interpret those laws.

 

Exactly right--so on what basis does Congress think it can usurp the ability to interpret laws regarding the flag? The amendment as written gave Congress the sole power to decide the constitutionality of laws having to do with the flag. It wasn't actually a ban on flag burning, per se.

 

logic /= you

 

brains /= you

[GettnHuge 1]

brains /= you

 

nooooooooo! how will I ever recover from this?

well I'm rubber and you're glue...

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Exactly right--so on what basis does Congress think it can usurp the ability to interpret laws regarding the flag? The amendment as written gave Congress the sole power to decide the constitutionality of laws having to do with the flag. It wasn't actually a ban on flag burning, per se.

 

But does SCOTUS have the ability to determine whether an Amendment is Constitutional? By making it an Amendment, then it would take it out of SCOTUS' hands to interpret that law.

 

Granted, the Amendment itself is stupid, but I think that if Congress were to enact that legislation, then they would be within their rights. Is there a provision that Congress can't make an Amendment that either reduces the power of another branch or gets rid of it altogether? I would assume so, but I don't know every provision in there.

[torridjoe 0]

But does SCOTUS have the ability to determine whether an Amendment is Constitutional? By making it an Amendment, then it would take it out of SCOTUS' hands to interpret that law.

 

Granted, the Amendment itself is stupid, but I think that if Congress were to enact that legislation, then they would be within their rights. Is there a provision that Congress can't make an Amendment that either reduces the power of another branch or gets rid of it altogether? I would assume so, but I don't know every provision in there.

 

There is some limited room for defining the scope of SCOTUS inquiry...but what this Amendment seeks to do is overturn settled law (it's OK to burn the flag) by first making it impossible for SCOTUS to rule on it again...and then changing the law. To which my question is: on what basis? The reason can't be "because we want to ban flag burning, and they've already said we can't." Why is it inappropriate for SCOTUS to have domain over decisions regarding the US flag? Supporters of the amendment weren't able to answer the question, near as I can tell.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

There is some limited room for defining the scope of SCOTUS inquiry...but what this Amendment seeks to do is overturn settled law (it's OK to burn the flag) by first making it impossible for SCOTUS to rule on it again...and then changing the law. To which my question is: on what basis? The reason can't be "because we want to ban flag burning, and they've already said we can't." Why is it inappropriate for SCOTUS to have domain over decisions regarding the US flag? Supporters of the amendment weren't able to answer the question, near as I can tell.

 

Prior rulings should not have bearing on an Amendment. Let's say that back in the 1860's, SCOTUS had upheld slavery at every step of the way. They are a bunch of old coots sitting on the Court who want to keep slaves. Are you saying that Congress should not have the right to put in an Amendment that outlaws slavery just because SCOTUS had already ruled?

 

I thought that the Amendment process was in place just for such a purpose - so that Congress could change laws that reflected the thinking of the times. Granted, you could have a some idiot Congressmen who run through an Amendment, but the reality is that the States would not ratify if it were something as trivial (and crazy) as this Amendment.

[torridjoe 0]

Prior rulings should not have bearing on an Amendment. Let's say that back in the 1860's, SCOTUS had upheld slavery at every step of the way. They are a bunch of old coots sitting on the Court who want to keep slaves. Are you saying that Congress should not have the right to put in an Amendment that outlaws slavery just because SCOTUS had already ruled?

 

No, I don't think you're following what's going on here. The Amendment doesn't ban flag burning. It only declares that SCOTUS can't rule on matters concerning the flag.

 

Why not?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No, I don't think you're following what's going on here. The Amendment doesn't ban flag burning. It only declares that SCOTUS can't rule on matters concerning the flag.

 

Why not?

 

You are not following my point. My point is that Congress can put in any Amendment they want, so long as it is ratified according to the Constitution and SCOTUS has no say as to whether it is there.

 

In addition, you were talking about SCOTUS having already ruled on the issue. What issue is that? I assumed it to be the flag burning thing. As such, Congress said that we will write an Amendment to the Constitution that will take away SCOTUS' ability to rule on the flag and then we will enact legislation forbidding it. Sort of tricky and underhanded, but I can't find anywhere that says that they can't do it.

 

BTW - I can't find anything in the limitations of SCOTUS that says that they cannot rule on the validity of an Amendment. So I would think that they could each lay claim and we would have something really messed up going on if this ever happened.

[torridjoe 0]

You are not following my point. My point is that Congress can put in any Amendment they want, so long as it is ratified according to the Constitution and SCOTUS has no say as to whether it is there.

 

In addition, you were talking about SCOTUS having already ruled on the issue. What issue is that? I assumed it to be the flag burning thing. As such, Congress said that we will write an Amendment to the Constitution that will take away SCOTUS' ability to rule on the flag and then we will enact legislation forbidding it. Sort of tricky and underhanded, but I can't find anywhere that says that they can't do it.

 

BTW - I can't find anything in the limitations of SCOTUS that says that they cannot rule on the validity of an Amendment. So I would think that they could each lay claim and we would have something really messed up going on if this ever happened.

 

Yes--we were talking about flag burning. SCOTUS has ruled on it directly.

 

To amend the Constitution by saying that Congress shall now act as the judicial branch on matters of the flag--it makes sense to you to allow Congress to act as judges on that one?